When did the 2nd temple literally initially cease being the holy place?

[Spiritual Israelite]

In Matthew 24 even the verse before and the two verses after tell us which generation He is referring to as [houtos] generation:

Matthew 24
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Luke 21
31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

@Spiritual Israelite Once someone decides to rip the same [houtos] generation out of its obviously end-of-the-age context, all sorts of scriptural circus acts start taking place. Our brother @marks here has "this generation not passing away till all these things are fulfilled" talking about "the nation" of "the chosen" (Israel) "continuing from the 1st century till the time of the end" @Spiritual Israelite (I edited it again).

That's what happens when people do not leave things in their context and do not let the New Testament interpret itself in terms of the meaning of the words "this [houtos] generation".

Since you edited this since the last time I replied to it, I figured I would reply again just to say that my previous view was similar to what @marks is saying and at least that view has "this generation" as being the generation that sees the things that would indicate that the kingdom of God and Christ's future return is near rather than trying to say that Jesus returned and the kingdom of God came in 70 AD because that is when "this generation" (time period) was still active, as preterists do. No, Jesus did not return and the kingdom of God did not come in any way, shape or form in 70 AD.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your usual selective cherry-picking.

Agree. He's trying to claim that "this generation" lasts for 3.5 years. That would be the shortest generation in the history of the world. No, it's not reasonable at all to claim that a generation can last only 3.5 years.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

this:

G3778
houtos houtoi haute¯ hautai
hoo'-tos, hoo'-toy, how'-tay, how'-tahee
Including the nominative masculine plural (second form), nominative feminine signular (third form), and the nominate feminine plural, (fourth form). From the article G3588 and G846; the he (she or it), that is, this or that (often with the article repeated): - he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who.

The verse equally can be translated as, "Verily I say unto you, THAT generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

Many people use "this generation" as supposed proof Jesus meant the one he lived in and was speaking to but that is faulty since the word equally can mean "that" so we would have "that generation".

Since the generation he lived in and was speaking to did not see the sun and moon go dark, stars fall, the sign of the son of man nor saw the son of man coming, nor the angels gathering the elect which would have included the disciples means without a doubt Jesus was speaking of a future generation.

Additionally, you can talk about a future generation and refer to it as "this generation". Example, "The generation of 3000AD will populate other planets. This generation will be known as the Space Generation."

Equally a past generation can be referred to as "that generation".

Another example. A man points to a red Corvette in his garage, "This car is mine." or "That car is mine." Same thing.

Yes, this is true. So, "this generation" really means "this same generation that I was just describing", and that can refer to a past, present or future generation, depending on the context.

 

[covenantee]

I guess he did mention that, but I don't really understand that, so I'd like a more detailed explanation.

The destruction of Babylon. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Isaiah 13
1 The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

The destruction of Idumea. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Isaiah 34
4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
5 For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.

The destruction of Egypt. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Ezekiel 32
2 Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt...
7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.
8 All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord God.

The destruction of Jerusalem. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Matthew 24
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

 

[Zao is life]

A local location for a final global event? I'm sorry, but that doesn't register with me.

Zechariah 14 has all nations gathering against Washington DC. Oh sorry, it has all nations gathering against Jerusalem and the LORD setting His feet on the highest peak in the Rocky Mountains, and helping all the nations against the Jews.

Oh sorry, it has Him setting His feet on the Mount of Olives and helping the Jews against all the rest who had gathered against Jerusalem.

PS: I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'm just being - I don't know - you find the English word for it (as long as it's not "ridiculous").

Back to subject: If Zechariah 14 is talking figuratively about New Jerusalem and Revelation 11:2, then Judea is talking figuratively about the saints in every part of the world.

But you see now how I'm speculating? Well if you don't, I see how I'm speculating. But I won't let speculation decide why Matthew 24:15 is telling those in Judea to flee Judea - because my belief (I'm convinced) that the AoD is referring to the same things as 2 Thess 2:4 and is the antitype of A4E's AoD - is not based on speculation, but on scripture.

Therefore the thing that still does not make sense (those in Judea being told to flee and Luke 21:20-24 saying the same thing when armies are gathered against Jerusalem) I do not try to force into making sense. I leave it alone until I understand (if I even get to fully understand it in my lifetime). (Maybe this passage will only be fully understood following the Lord's return).

But

What does this mean? I'm an Amill, so I don't understand why you would try to associate "a future millennium" with my view.

You have Matthew 24:9-14 associated with the Lord's return - a future millennium to the millennium you have verses 15-22 associated with. Nothing to do with being Amil.

Can you try to word that in a way that is more straightforward and specific? I'm not sure what you were intending to say here.

You really do ignore what the words "and, but, for, therefore" etc mean in the Matthew 24:9-31 passage.

Read the passage from verse 9 - 31, mentally highlighting every time you see a conjunctive word, and tell me that making different millennia (part end of the age and part 1st century) out of the same passage goes in accordance with the normal usage of English grammar. You can't, because it does not agree with the grammar used in the passage (the word "therefore" in Matthew 24;15 being a good example).

I don't mind the fact that you really believe that Matthew 24:15-22 is referring to 66-70 A.D, as long as you don't mind the fact that I believe that the AoD in the holy place is referring to something that is going to be done in the church / body of Christ by the man of sin at the end of the age - and that goes in accordance with the grammatical meaning of the word "therefore" in the verse.

I don't believe in a "future millennium", so putting it this way does not accurately reflect what I believe

As above, that's not what I was talking about.

I know you're saying that you can't understand how Jesus could have gone back and forth in time in relation to different events.

Ditto.

But, as I've said, I can't understand how you can claim that He didn't answer the question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed. We've been over this already multiple times and it's clear that neither of us are going to budge on this. So, we need to just agree to disagree.

If I'm supposedly creating my way around it, then so are you. But, I don't think we need to talk about each other's views rudely like that. What I do is acknowledge that Jesus answered the question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed and then determine where exactly He answered that question.

My apologies if I was being rude. I was being straight-forward but wasn't trying to talk down on you. From my perspective you are trying to get around it - but I realize that my perspective is false because you really do believe that just because the disciples asked Jesus about the Jerusalem temple, He answered them about the Jerusalem temple

- IF that's even what they asked Him about: See this word:

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things [houtos] be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age? (Matthew 24:3).

So according to Matthew, were they asking Him about when the end of the age would be, or about when the Jerusalem temple would be destroyed?

PS: I already know your answer, LOL - you're NOT going to interpret the word [houtos] in Matthew 24:3 in the same way that you now interpret it in Matthew 24:34.

(I'm being friendly. Not cynical or sarcastic).

And, of course, it's only my opinion that it's not reasonable to believe that Jesus didn't answer the question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed. But, I, am glad that you at least do not agree with the dispensationalist view that Matthew 24:15 is talking about some future physical temple.

To me, not only had Jesus finished all He wanted to say about the temple and its coming destruction when still on the Temple Mount (before He even began making His way to the Mount of Olives), but Jesus often did not answer their questions with a reply that was related to their questions

- and in this case (on the Mount of Olives), His main subject was the coming end-of-the-age deception, false prophets, false Christs, persecution and tribulation of the saints, etc etc. IMO His focus had shifted. He was answering them with what He wanted them to know about, not about what they wanted to know about.

Now you may get annoyed with me again (along with a whole bunch of other people), but I'll say it: IMO your interpretation shows that your mind, like theirs was that day, is still fixated on the old things. But by the time He reached the Mount of Olives, His mind wasn't.

(IMO).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The destruction of Babylon. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Isaiah 13
1 The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

The destruction of Idumea. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Isaiah 34
4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
5 For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.

The destruction of Egypt. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Ezekiel 32
2 Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt...
7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.
8 All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord God.

The destruction of Jerusalem. Apocalyptic hyperbole. Not the Second Coming.

Matthew 24
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

But, the sun being darkened and moon not giving its light and such are said to be things that occur "AFTER the tribulation of those days" is over, not DURING the tribulation of those days, as you seem to be saying.

 

[covenantee]

But, the sun being darkened and moon not giving its light and such are said to be things that occur "AFTER the tribulation of those days" is over, not DURING the tribulation of those days, as you are trying to say.

"Immediately after" is close enough for me.

 

[WPM]

"Immediately after" is close enough for me.

You are making the second coming AD70 like the Full Preterists.

 

[WPM]

PS: I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'm just being - I don't know - you find the English word for it (as long as it's not "ridiculous")...

(I'm being friendly. Not cynical or sarcastic).

Yes, you are. Stop telling lies!

 

[covenantee]

You are making the second coming AD70 like the Full Preterists.

You are making the destruction of Jerusalem like the dispenites.

 

[WPM]

You are making the destruction of Jerusalem like the dispenites.

I knew you would say that.

 

[covenantee]

I knew you would say that.

If you wanted to be ignored, you should have said so.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Zechariah 14 has all nations gathering against Washington DC. Oh sorry, it has all nations gathering against Jerusalem and the LORD setting His feet on the highest peak in the Rocky Mountains, and helping all the nations against the Jews.

Oh sorry, it has Him setting His feet on the Mount of Olives and helping the Jews against all the rest who had gathered against Jerusalem.

PS: I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'm just being - I don't know - you find the English word for it (as long as it's not "ridiculous").

So, in that same vein of not intending to be sarcastic, but rather simply indicating how I see it, I don't believe it's logical to think that literally all nations would literally, physically gather against the earthly city of Jerusalem.

Back to subject: If Zechariah 14 is talking figuratively about New Jerusalem and Revelation 11:2, then Judea is talking figuratively about the saints in every part of the world.

But you see now how I'm speculating? Well if you don't, I see how I'm speculating.

Since I see that you are saying that you are speculating, then, yes, I can see that since I'm not going to try to claim that you're not speculating as if I can speak for you instead of you speaking for yourself. Many people on this forum imagine that they can speak for everyone else even though they don't even understand what others believe. I'm glad you're not like that.

I don't personally see a direct connection between Zechariah 14, Matthew 24:15-22 and Revelation 11:2, but it's not something that is unreasonable to consider, at least.

But I won't let speculation decide why Matthew 24:15 is telling those in Judea to flee Judea - because my belief (I'm convinced) that the AoD is referring to the same things as 2 Thess 2:4 and is the antitype of A4E's AoD - is not based on speculation, but on scripture.

And, I, of course, have never said that your view isn't based on what you see in scripture. One thing I would never accuse you of is just coming up with things in your imagination, as I think some here do, rather than basing your view on what you see in scripture.

Therefore the thing that still does not make sense (those in Judea being told to flee and Luke 21:20-24 saying the same thing when armies are gathered against Jerusalem) I do not try to force into making sense. I leave it alone until I understand (if I even get to fully understand it in my lifetime). (Maybe this passage will only be fully understood following the Lord's return).

But

You have Matthew 24:9-14 associated with the Lord's return - a future millennium to the millennium you have verses 15-22 associated with. Nothing to do with being Amil.

Please stop misrepresenting my view. I'm asking you politely. I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but, at the same time you should allow me to tell you what I believe instead of you telling me what I believe. The word "millennium" means "a thousand years". So, that reference is naturally going to make someone think of the thousand years of Revelation 20. I do not have Matthew 24:9-14 relating to the thousand years, but rather Satan's little season AFTER the thousand years. So, please, come up with a different way to describe my view than that.

You really do ignore what the words "and, but, for, therefore" etc mean in the Matthew 24:9-31 passage.

Do you have a desire for us to return to us being nasty to each other? If you keep saying that I'm ignoring things, which I absolutely am not, then that is what it's going to lead to. I don't want that, though. Do you? I have told you multiple times how I understand the word "therefore" in verse 15 and I do have it pointing back to something Jesus previously said and I have showed you other verses where that word can be used to refer to something said before the previous verse. So, I am not ignoring what those words mean as you rudely claimed.

Read the passage from verse 9 - 31, mentally highlighting every time you see a conjunctive word, and tell me that making different millennia (part end of the age and part 1st century)

Why are you using a word that refers to "a thousand years" as a synonym for different time periods that are not a thousand years? That just makes everything confusing.

out of the same passage goes in accordance with the normal usage of English grammar. You can't, because it does not agree with the grammar used in the passage (the word "therefore" in Matthew 24;15 being a good example).

The fact of the matter, as I've shown multiple times, is that the Greek wrod translated as "therefore" in verse 15 can be used to refer back to something previously said before the previous verse.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't mind the fact that you really believe that Matthew 24:15-22 is referring to 66-70 A.D, as long as you don't mind the fact that I believe that the AoD in the holy place is referring to something that is going to be done in the church / body of Christ by the man of sin at the end of the age - and that goes in accordance with the grammatical meaning of the word "therefore" in the verse.

I don't mind that. Read that again and don't forget it, please. I. Do. Not. Mind. That. Okay?

And, the reason I don't mind that is because you at least don't try to say that it has anything to do with a future physical temple where reinstated animal sacrifices would take place and all that dispensational nonsense.

As above, that's not what I was talking about.

So, please, to avoid confusion, do not use the word "millennium" in relation to time periods that do not represent "a thousand years", whether literally or figuratively.

My apologies if I was being rude. I was being straight-forward but wasn't trying to talk down on you. From my perspective you are trying to get around it - but I realize that my perspective is false because you really do believe that just because the disciples asked Jesus about the Jerusalem temple, He answered them about the Jerusalem temple

I accept that you were not intending to be rude. And I'm not intending to be rude, but I find it to be a bit funny that you say "just because" they asked Him about the destruction of the Jerusalem temple buildings, as if them asking Him a question is insignificant and He could just not answer their question if He didn't feel like it without even telling them that He was not going to answer it. So, we each have things that we find about the other's view that we don't find to be very reasonable. It is what it is.

- IF that's even what they asked Him about: See this word:

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things [houtos] be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age? (Matthew 24:3).

So according to Matthew, were they asking Him about when the end of the age would be, or about when the Jerusalem temple would be destroyed?

PS: I already know your answer, LOL - you're NOT going to interpret the word [houtos] in Matthew 24:3 in the same way that you now interpret it in Matthew 24:34.

(I'm being friendly. Not cynical or sarcastic).

I don't even understand what you're intending to say here. Can you explain? The word "houtos" is not used in Matthew 24:3. When it comes to "these things" (tauta, not houtos), I DO interpret that the same way in Matthew 24:3 AS I ALWAYS HAVE interpreted "these things" in Matthew 24:34 in the sense that "these things" refer to the same "these things" referenced in the previous verse. But, I see no reason to think that "these things" in Matthew 24:3 are the same "these things" of Matthew 24:34 because "these things" in Matthew 24:3 refer to the temple buildings" that were standing at that time that Jesus explicitly said would be destroyed (Matt 24:2), while "these things" in Matthew 24:34 refer, not to the temple buildings, but rather to the things that would occur that would show that His coming is near, which includes things like increased persecution, apostasy, deception and wickedness, which lines up with another passage that talks about the things that would indicate that His coming is near, which is 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12.

To me, not only had Jesus finished all He wanted to say about the temple and its coming destruction when still on the Temple Mount (before He even began making His way to the Mount of Olives), but Jesus often did not answer their questions with a reply that was related to their questions

Can you give me at least 2 or 3 examples of what you're talking about here? I can't even think of one. I can think of Him maybe answering their questions in a way that they might not have expected, as I believe is the case in Acts 1:6-8, but I can't think of any time where He just didn't answer their questions at all.

- and in this case (on the Mount of Olives), His main subject was the coming end-of-the-age deception, false prophets, false Christs, persecution and tribulation of the saints, etc etc. IMO His focus had shifted. He was answering them with what He wanted them to know about, not about what they wanted to know about.

Now you may get annoyed with me again (along with a whole bunch of other people), but I'll say it: IMO your interpretation shows that your mind, like theirs was that day, is still fixated on the old things.

Yes, I am annoyed by that because I am NOT a preterist. You know that. It's quite clear that I do NOT interpret Him to have only talked about things related to 70 AD or, at least, mostly about 70 AD as preterists do. Out of all the verses in the Olivet Discourse, which includes all of the verses in Matthew 25, the only ones that I see as relating to what happened in 70 AD are found in Matthew 24:15-22 (and the parallel passages of Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24). That's it. So, for you to lump me in with the preterists is indeed quite annoying.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

"Immediately after" is close enough for me.

Okay, but say that then. You came across as if you believed the time of the "tribulation of those days" itself is when the sun would be darkened and the moon would not give its light and so on rather than that immediately occurring or beginning to occur after "the tribulation of those days" is over. So, what amount of time exactly do you think the part which says "the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken" represents after 70 AD?

I saw that claninja understood you to be saying that His second coming would occur long after (at least 2,000 years or so) the fulfillment of Matthew 24:29. Is that how you see it? Which would mean that you believe that there is a long gap of time between the fulfillment of verse 29 and verse 30? Is that accurate?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are making the second coming AD70 like the Full Preterists.

You are making the destruction of Jerusalem like the dispenites.

Okay, hold on now. Let's not go there. I know that covenantee does not believe that Matthew 24:30-31 was fulfilled in 70 AD and rather will be fulfilled at the future return of Christ when the angels come and gather us to meet Christ in the air. And, I know that WPM does not believe that the destruction of Jerusalem will happen in the future, but rather happened in 70 AD. So, let's stop these false accusations, guys. Take a deep breath and calm down before making your next post. I greatly respect both of you guys and you know that all 3 of us agree on a lot of things when it comes to eschatology (much more than we disagree on!), so let's please not make this personal.

 

[WPM]

Okay, hold on now. Let's not go there. I know that covenantee does not believe that Matthew 24:30-31 was fulfilled in 70 AD and rather will be fulfilled at the future return of Christ when the angels come and gather us to meet Christ in the air. And, I know that WPM does not believe that the destruction of Jerusalem will happen in the future, but rather happened in 70 AD. So, let's stop these false accusations, guys. Take a deep breath and calm down before making your next post. I greatly respect both of you guys and you know that all 3 of us agree on a lot of things when it comes to eschatology (much more than we disagree on!), so let's please not make this personal.

Indeed!

 

[Zao is life]

So, in that same vein of not intending to be sarcastic, but rather simply indicating how I see it, I don't believe it's logical to think that literally all nations would literally, physically gather against the earthly city of Jerusalem.


Please stop misrepresenting my view. I'm asking you politely. I do not have Matthew 24:9-14 relating to the thousand years, but rather Satan's little season AFTER the thousand years. So, please, come up with a different way to describe my view than that.

I know that and you keep misunderstanding what I mean by "a different millennium".

I'm not talking about Revelation 20 at all.

I'm saying that you have the events of Matthew 24:15-22 unfolding at least 1,930 years before the events of Matthew 24:9-14 (in a different millennium). I could have said, "in a different century" but that hardly describes the time gap between the 1st century and now. So I chose the words "different millennium".

It has nothing to do with where you place Revelation 20's millennium. It has nothing to do with whether you are Amil or Premil. Premils could share the same view as you regarding Matthew 24:15-22 without becoming "Not-Premil".

I know you have the events of Matthew 24:9-14 unfolding before the return of Christ.

I'm simply saying that there are millennia (plural) in between the century you place Matthew 24:15-22 in, and the century you place Matthew 24:9-14 in.

but then you go back to placing Matthew 24:23 onward in a time that only comes about 1,930 + years after Matthew 24:15-22 again, when (at the same time that) you have the events of Matthew 24:9-14 playing out.

So I was NOT being nasty OR critical of you. I was just stating WHY I cannot see - bearing in mind the grammar used in the passage - how you can do that.

Do you have a desire for us to return to us being nasty to each other? If you keep saying that I'm ignoring things, which I absolutely am not,

You HAVE TO ignore the normal meaning of the conjunctive words used in Matthew 24:9-31 in order to separate Matthew 24:15-22 from Matthew 24:9-14 and Matthew 24:23-31. It isn't ONLY the word "therefore" that you have to ignore in order to break up the passage like that.

Saying you ignore those conjunctive words is not being critical of you. It's an objective analysis of the facts.

You're being argumentative about nothing because their is no personal criticism in what I'm saying about that.

So..

We may as well agree to disagree, because you're just taking offense.

 

[claninja]

Your Greek "expert" has other experts disagreeing with his convoluted and confused definition of houtos.

Sure, just provide one Greek expert that disagrees In order to validate this claim

Most saints only need to read the context of the passage. The same [houtos] generation that will see the signs will not pass until the things Jesus mentioned have passed.

Read what he said towards the end of that post and then you should see what he meant by that. The word "this" there is translated from the Greek word "houtos", which can also mean "the same" like it is in this verse, for example:

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same (houtos) shall be saved.

So, in this verse, "houtos" is used to refer to people who had previously been referenced, which were those who endure unto the end. And He said "the same (houtos) shall be saved". So, "the same" refers to those previously mentioned people who would endure unto the end.

He used this passage to make his point, so keep that definition of the word "houtos" in mind when you read this passage...

Luke 21:31
So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

So, his argument is that "this generation" refers to "the same" generation that would see the things come to pass that would make them know that the kingdom of God was near. In that case, "this generation" doesn't need to be the current generation, but instead is "the same" generation that would see "these things come to pass". I think that makes a lot of sense.

I mean, I absolutely agree it’s the generation that lives through the events of the Olivet discourse that doesn’t pass away. That’s pretty much implied with the whole “not passing away until these things happen”.

“This”, following the noun genea, is simply an adjective to describe something as near in space, time, or thought.

“All these things” is a standalone pronoun. What are the antecedents to “all these things?”

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I know that and you keep misunderstanding what I mean by "a different millennium".

I'm not talking about Revelation 20 at all.

The word "millennium" means "a thousand years". So, can you please use a different word to describe what you're talking about in order to avoid confusion? If I was using a word that was causing you to be confused in relation to what I was talking about and you asked me to use a different word instead, then I would have no problem with that because I do not want to cause any confusion.

I'm saying that you have the events of Matthew 24:15-22 unfolding at least 1,930 years before the events of Matthew 24:9-14 (in a different millennium).

Yep, I do. And I see no problem with that because it's not unusual for Bible prophecy to make leaps in time here and there. Such as how Revelation 11:15-19 refers to the future return of Christ at the seventh and last trumpet, but then shortly after that in Revelation 12:3-5 it refers back to Christ's birth and ascension which, of course, will end up having occurred at least 2,000 years or so before the return of Christ.

I could have said, "in a different century" but that hardly describes the time gap between the 1st century and now. So I chose the words "different millennium".

You can just say completely different time periods that are almost 2,000 years apart or something like that instead.

It has nothing to do with where you place Revelation 20's millennium. It has nothing to do with whether you are Amil or Premil. Premils could share the same view as you regarding Matthew 24:15-22 without becoming "Not-Premil".

Yes, I know that now, but I just think using different terms can avoid that confusion. I'm asking nicely for you to use different terms when talking to me, at least. Feel free to use whatever terms you want when talking to someone else, of course.

I know you have the events of Matthew 24:9-14 unfolding before the return of Christ.

Yes, just like you do. I assume.

I'm simply saying that there are millennia (plural) in between the century you place Matthew 24:15-22 in, and the century you place Matthew 24:9-14 in.

I know what you're saying now that you've explained it. But, it would've been better to avoid having to explain it. But, whatever. I know what you meant now.

but then you go back to placing Matthew 24:23 onward in a time that only comes about 1,930 + years after Matthew 24:15-22 again, when (at the same time that) you have the events of Matthew 24:9-14 playing out.

Well, if you look at Luke 21, it describes the same thing as Matthew 24:15-22 in Luke 21:20-24, but then it has Jews (or whoever you think they are) being taken captive into all nations and has a time period called "the times of the Gentiles" following what is described in Luke 21:20-24a. So, where would you place the taking of the Jews (or whoever you think they are) and "the times of the Gentiles" in Matthew 24? Wouldn't it have to be between the end of Matthew 24:15-22 and Matthew 24:29-31? I believe so. Yet, I think you have the end of Matthew 24:22 occurring when Matthew 24:29 occurs with no time in between. That would mean you have to see Matthew 24:23-26 as referring to the same time period as Matthew 24:15-22 and you would have to conclude that the Jews being taken captive to all nations and the times of the Gentiles occur while what is described in Matthew 24:15-22 is taking place rather than occurring after what is described there is over, as I believe is indicated in the parallel passage of Luke 21:20-24.

So I was NOT being nasty OR critical of you. I was just stating WHY I cannot see - bearing in mind the grammar used in the passage - how you can do that.

Yes, I can see now what you meant by the term "millennium", but it obviously caused me to not understand what you were intending to say. So, I'm simply asking you to please use a different term than that. But, at this point, I know what you mean when you use that term in this context, so, I guess go ahead and use it if you want. We all have to spend so much time clarifying what we're saying here because we all have different ways of communicating and we use different terms. It comes with the territory. But, it sure can be frustrating. This is why I look forward to eternity so much because not only will there be no more death, crying, sorrow and pain, but also no more frustrating miscommunication.

You HAVE TO ignore the normal meaning of the conjunctive words used in Matthew 24:9-31 in order to separate Matthew 24:15-22 from Matthew 24:9-14 and Matthew 24:23-31. It isn't ONLY the word therefore you have to ignore in order to break up the passage like that.

I am not ignoring anything and if you say that one more time, we're done.

Saying you ignore those conjunctive words is not being critical of you. It's an objective analysis of the facts.

No, it is not. Again, the word "therefore" can refer back to something that was being talked about before the previous verse. That's a fact and I've given examples of that, such as Romans 12:1 referring back to Romans 11:32 and Ephesians 4:1 referring back to Ephesians 3:13. So, I'm not ignoring anything. If I was ignoring that, I would not acknowledge that the use of the word "therefore" was referring back to something at all, including the immediately preceding verse or any other preceding verse(s) before that. But, I'm not doing that.

You're being argumentative about nothing because their is no personal criticism in what I'm saying about that.

Can you respect that it comes across that way to me and stop telling me that I'm ignoring things, please? If not, then I don't have any interest in continuing the discussion. I am trying to not say anything to offend you out of respect and out of knowing where our discussions have gone in the past when we have offended each other. I'm trying to avoid that. Is that what you want as well or do you actually want us to go back to talking to each like that? I doubt that.

So..

We may as well agree to disagree, because you're just taking offense.

Is it too much to ask for you to just not use words that can come across as offensive? We just have to stop talking to each other instead?